Mid-year rule changes not on.

[Belegur]

Understandably this has been a difficult week for everyone in the football community. In the scheme of the events that have occurred fantasy football will be irrelevant for a lot of people. If you have no interested in the way the rule change functioned I can understand that, you should give this post a miss.


Coming into this week the guy leading has Gibson Oxley Macintosh Dahlhaus Tarrant and no bench cover. You think he isn't laughing have to field only 18.

Like many others I'm sure, my 4 disallowed scores were over 78 so we're looking at somewhere from a 100-200 point differential, even though I had the same number of starting players from the cancelled game (2), and the same number of missing players (2, Sloane, franklin).

They panicked and implemented something when nothing needed to be changed. Why did they take a system that is used when 6 teams aren't playing for a week when 2 teams don't play? They used a pipe wrench to perform brain surgery. I saw somewhere that they mentioned using averages of the missing players would cause some issues. Sure it would of, but it would of been a lot more sensible than just randomly using the bye round structure. There was no players from that game ranked in the top 20 most owned players, and realistically less than 1/4 of players in the game have any SuperCoach relevance. Using the bye system doesn't even go that far to fixing the problem, if you had 5 starters from that game, you now have 5 less chances to fit big scores into your top 18. Its a bandaid fix. All it really has done has helped teams who contain players with with high standard deviations, and disadvantage teams with consistent players. If a change needed to be made, averages or a more specific estimate (not projections, their projection equation is terrible) would have made much more sense.

A quick analysis of all the teams would of shown most teams have a very low number of these players. On top of this it was the second last game of the round, so being able to loophole emergencies partially solved the issue anyway. the only main issue I see is that two highly popular rucks were in that game, which are very hard to cover. I still believe the rules should not of been altered at all, but given the ruck situation, using averages, or maybe using best 20/22, or I'm sure just about any other solution would of resulted in a better outcome than using bye round rules.

Anyway I've been on record already as saying they have a lot of problems with the game at the moment. I've been playing for about 6 years, most of these have been recent things like the rolling lockout. I think they have a lot of work to do on the competition if they want to keep it running. They seem to be making more money out of it than they used to. Has the game got better? I would say it's gone backwards. Fairly on the fence weather or not to play again next year at this stage.

[Belegur]

just to back this up the guy who is now leading had scores of 58, 52, 49 and 47 discounted, yet he's only got 2 players from Adelaide and Geelong....

And the guy who won the week has 0 premiums, 1 rookie from that game.

[GoLions]

k

[crowls]

Fair points.  However do they have software in place to implement other options.    Someyhing they can assess for future incidents.   In scheme of things minor compared to impact on brownlow and ladder.          Also this game is not an issue compared to life issues for those directkly affected by walshes death.

[Jesty]

Yeah thats what I was thinking. No time to change the system so went with a system already in place for calculating.